This list digest contains the following message subjects:
Wow, what timing. Yeah, it's me, Rob. I'm back. And just by coincidence on "Black Monday II". Hope nobody had their life savings in the stock market.
Looks like lightning does strike twice, BANG!
I will now work for food.
One Set to Failure
Several HIT proponents say that one set is usually all you need if it's done to failure. But people are not alike. Thus there may be some trainees who can benefit from more training be it then another set or the set extended beyond failure. But have you ever thought of the other side? If one set to failure is the right dose for many then there must be trainees to whom even one set to failure IS TOO MUCH. Not that one set to failure would mean gross overtraining but by decreasing the intensity by a bit the rate of progress could be increased with these individuals. Please note that failure point has nothing magical in it; it just represents the situation where the muscular force has dropped below the resistance of the load. Why would that point have to be the right one? Mike Mentzer writes in the November ANMD: "The fact that there are only two accurate measures of intensity - 0%, when at complete rest, and 100%, when exerting oneself maximally - makes it necessary that you train to failure". This seems leaky logic to me. If the optimum intensity for someone was less than 100%, say 80%, then should he or she bring the set until failure only for the sake of being able to say what the intensity of the set was? Why not try to find by experimenting what degree of intensity would yield the greatest progress? Of course if the set is not taken to failure it cannot be said what the exact intensity was, but if a trainee has experience of to failure-training he or she can estimate with sufficient accuracy how many reps short of failure the set was taken.
I encourage those to consider this possibility who are using one set to failure-system but are not quite satisfied with their progress.
Erkki
>numerous studies support an angle specific response to isometric work. As we all know (and Nautilus tried to correct this with limited success), the problem with barbell work is that only certain parts of the strenght curve are overloaded. Meaning that other parts of the curve are underloaded (since you are limited by what you can move through your weak range). If a powerlifter had a bad lockout, and benches weren't maximally overloading that position
Sounds contradictory to me. If one has a bad lockout, shouldn't benches overload just that position? There's something else, too. If intensity of effort is the key to progress then why wouldn't strength differences even out with time as the intensity around the weak range is the highest? It indicates that intensity is not everything.
Erkki Turunen
Andrew,
> The average person who does not strength train only loses half a pound of muscle per year after the mid 20's, so I hardly think that a person who is strength training would lose a significant amount of muscle after only a week or two off.
I've heard this also, but whenever I try to explain this to anyone they ask me to prove it. Do you have references for this statement?
Derek.
This post is mostly related to the eccentric exercise thread...
> > In a message dated 97-10-26 13:46:23 EST, you write: > >
<< Can anyone tell me why eccentric exercise is so beneficial? I
> Negative training allows one to train at a maximal level of intensity, while performing less overall work, which is due in part to the effects of intramuscular friction. Arthur wrote a long article on this explaining the math involved, and as soon as I can find it, I'll post it for everyone.
I assume you mean Arthur Jones. I've been wondering if anyone has been able to duplicate his intriguing negative-only experiment (if it can be called that). Specifically, have there been any serious studies comparing eccentric-only vs. concentric-only vs. concentric+eccentric exercise? <jkrieger@eecs.wsu.edu> and Lyle McDonald both refer to studies of eccentric-only vs. concentric only.
Brian Baquiran
[I did some reformatting of this message. Please don't send messages in MIME format, or HTML or whatever. Just plain text please -- Rob]
I am really enjoying this list. Every once in a while I check out what's happening on misc.fitness.weights but by in large it is a huge disappointment because the level of discourse is so pathetic. This is a very welcome and refreshing change!
My questions concern workouts. Using HIT or SuperSlow HIT would it be better to pick 4-6 multi-joint exercises and repeat them twice a week or every 4-5 days depending on recovery, or would it be better to pick two groups of 4-6 exercises and alternate them twice a week or every 4-5 days? If I were to workout just one day per week, is it better to stick with certain exercises for several weeks before changing them or do one group of exercises one week and another group the second week? Doing squats or deadlifts twice a week is too much but the thought of doing them once every other week "seems" like too little. Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Kirk M. Wellum
My stats: 17 1/2 years old 5' 8" 144 10% bodyfat maintenance intake is around 2200-2300 calories per day. I eat approx 40% carb, 30% protein, and 30% fat. I play lacrosse, hockey, and swim team for my high school. I am a volume lifter( ex: chest-- 4 sets dumbell press, 4 sets freeweight butterfly, and 4 sets dips, every monday.) I am currently doing cardio everyday in order to get ready for the back to back seasons of swimming and lacrosse. I am looking for any help or suggestions in ways that I can still retain and even build muscle mass while doing cardio everyday. I was planning on upping my protein to about 200g per day, while keeping the calories at maintenance( 2200-2300 cals/day).
Thank you
alex funk hockeyboss@aol.com